2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League [R]

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Allocating slots according to performance.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

if that its true,then how many spots concacaf will take away from MLS and will give to more deserving federations the next tourney

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Wait a couple of years. This set up was only put in place for the first three years. They may do just that.

Regardless, that's irrelevant to what they are doing now, but you insist on harping on it.

Right now, they've had to remove Belize's allocation, and they replaced it based on performance in last year's tournament.

There's also a possibility that they'll have to remove another allocation, and they are going to replace it based on performance.

How is that not a good thing? Or at least a step in the right direction?

You're acting like the poor kid that gets pissed off when his parents buy him a single-speed bike because he really wanted a ten-speed. I'm sure there's a better analogy, but that's what I came up with on the fly.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

nope im sorry,but the way i see it,if MLS continues failing miserably the next couple of tourneys,concacaf is gonna come up with a new format for the tourney and say, hey its a new tourney,lets start from zero and give MLS the same spots as mexico and more spots than costa rica,they always do it that way.no matter how you try to defend concacaf decisions, they are always crappy decisions.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Just waitin on Canada, Guatemala, and Nicargua.

(Toronto FC, Municipal, and Real Esteli???)

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

According to this CONCACAF has made an error in awarding El Salvador's second spot to CD Aguila.

For those that can't read spanish, all it pretty much says is that CONCACAF misunderstood it's own rules and awarded El Salvador's second spot to CD Aguila (who finished with the second most amount of points in the accumulated Apertura/Clausura table) when infact it should have gone to CD Chalatenango.

As El Salvador had on winner of both it's Apertura and Clausura tournaments, that team (Metapan) will recieve El Salvador's first spot (straight into the group stage), but as per CONCACAF rules, El Salvador's second spot goes to the best overall performer out of both the losing finalists (CD Chalatenango - Apertura finalist and LA Firpo - Clausura finalist). And as CD Chalatenango scored 53 points to LA Firpo's 51, they go through to the preliminaries.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

I thought they changed the rules after last year. Because they were making teams play home and away tie-breaker matches and there were a lot of complaints.

See: http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4553

It looks like they followed the rules to me.

"Because teams in the region play split Apertura and Clausura seasons, a team winning both championships would claim the top seed from countries that receive more than one berth (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama). If the Apertura and Clausura winners are different, the seedings would be determined first by aggregate points over both seasons, then goal difference then goals scored.

In the case where one team wins both the Apertura and Clausura, the second seed would be determined by the tiebreaker procedure."

And, "The purpose is to eliminate the extra games that had to be played this past year and caused numerous scheduling conflicts with national team commitments."

The first bolded part is the tiebreaker procedure and the second says that the second team will be determined by that procedure if one team wins both, it's clear as day.

EDIT:
Yeah, I just found this from last years tournament:

They wanted to get rid of all that crap so they changed the rules. So, unless they changed them again, that article you linked to in Spanish is wrong. Where did it come from?

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

CONCACAF has it both ways on their website:

http://www.concacaf.com/view_article.aspx?id=4753

And



Somebody made a mistake somewhere.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Oh, wait, I think I see what you're saying. They didn't use the wrong method, they just picked the wrong team, is that right?

Actually, let me go look. Ok, here are the results from the 2008 Apertura and the 2009 Clausura, I left some teams off:
2008 A
Chalatenango 3 – 3 (a.e.t.) (3-4) penalties Metapán

2009 C
C.D. Luis AngelFirpo 0 – 1 A.D. Isidro Metapán

Aggregate
1. A.D. Isidro Metapán 36 18 12 5 60 35 +25 66
2. C.D. Aguila 36 17 7 11 62 43 +19 61
3. C.D. FAS 36 15 11 9 49 38 +11 59
4. C.D. Chalatenango 36 13 14 8 45 44 +1 53
5. C.D. Luis Angel Firpo 36 12 12 11 44 33 +11 51

So, based on that, Metapan won both, so they get the top seed and C.D. Aguila took second over both seasons based on points. Chalatenanago was in fourth!

Figures, after we were talking about the improvements CONCACAF was making this kind of farce comes out. Can someone find where it says that they compare the points of the Apertura and Clausura runners-up?

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Both now say Chalatenango.

I guess they fixed the graphic.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Toronto FC and Vancouver Whitecaps are both tied with 6-points - but Toronto has a game in hand. If Toronto wins against Vancouver next Tuesday it will be Toronto; but Vancouver can still qualify if they draw (or win), and Toronto loses to Montreal in 2 weeks time.

No Montreal Impact this year though ...

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

erasing an entire history, or even recent history based upon a simple format change is both dumb and make little sense


pretty sure EUFA doesn't restart their coefficients with every little format change

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

So El Salvador is sending their fourth placed team to CCL? Interesting...

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Well, MLS sends their 'subcampeon'- being this year the Red Bulls (are sh..) and that team was the 8th seed in the playoffs. So fair enough if the system was set up to consider the runner up with the most points.

But it certainly wasn't clear in the language quoted above- it seemed to point to awarding the spot to the team with the most points over the Apertura and Clausura, regardless of playoff performance.

In fact last year when they had the same champion for both Apertura and Clausura, they selected the team with the most points in the Clausura (and not the runner up in the final). Thus, when LA Firpo beat FAS in the Clausura to complete a sweep of the championships, Metapan qualified with most points in that tournement.

So I confused and not the only one- they had Aguilas posted up there for a while.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Well if you make the 2008 MLS regular season standings single table, two of the four American MLS teams in the 2009-2010 Champions League were in the bottom half (New York and D.C.).

Today CONCACAF announced the draw will be June 11.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

CON-CACA is a huge cluster fμck

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Wow, thank you for your amazing and insightful contribution to this thread. We couldn't have done without it.

That seems a bit goofy to me because it punishes a team that makes the playoff and then loses while the teams that don't make it can gain on them. Unless they go by straight points earned and not by points per game. I'll show both.

I credited the Apertura final match as a draw because it went to penalties. If I had made it a win for Metapan that would have left Chalatenango with even one more point less.

Code:

1. 	Metapán 	42 	22 	13 	6 	74 	42 	+32 	79	1.88
2. 	Aguila 		38 	18 	7 	12 	63 	46 	+17 	64	1.68
3. 	FAS 		40 	16 	13 	10 	55 	44 	+11 	64	1.6
4. 	Chalatenango 	39 	14 	15 	9 	51 	48 	+3 	57	1.46
5. 	Firpo 		39 	12 	14 	12 	46 	36 	+10 	53	1.36
6. 	Vista Hermosa 	36 	12 	9 	14 	40 	43 	-3 	48	1.33
7. 	Nejapa F.C. 	38 	9 	13 	15 	36 	53 	-17 	40	1.05
8. 	Balboa 		36 	7 	16 	12 	40 	49 	-9 	37	1.03
9. 	Alianza 		36 	7 	12 	16 	31 	42 	-11 	36	1
10. 	Independiente 	36 	7 	10 	18 	32 	64 	-32 	31	.86

Chalatenango is still fourth. In fact, the standings didn't change at all.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

just wondering if this might happen but Right now Canada only has one entree do you think we will ever get 2 entries like the winner of Canadian Championship gets in and then the runner up has to qualify?

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Given how Montreal performed, I would say yes they do. But the thing is that you need to have a lot more then 3 teams fighting for one spot which goes into what I have always said: Canada needs to create their own league and stop depending on the USA.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

ya but I don't think we can manage our own league good and it would be a really bad league, what I can hope for is that they allow one of the lower league teams for example Victoria highlanders ect to play to make our Canadian cup to a 4 team competition, but I honestly think before Canada even thinks about their own league we need to sort out the CSA (there a mess) and try and get more canadian teams In USL like try a team in Halmiton, and a ottawa team in USL ect to see if the teams would work because I would hate to see Canada get a league and then TFC MTL and whitecaps best teams then a bunch of crap teams then the league folds, and TFC MTL and Whitecaps get screwed.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

Personally, I think it is possible to have a successful league in Canada. This could work towards an organized project to qualify for WC 2014. But in order to do that, Canada needs their own league to have a decent place for your talent to work at. Canada has brought a good number of players but this dependance on others, especially for a crappy league like MLS, needs to stop.

Canada alone is stopping their progress.

Back to the league, a lot of teams in are now taking the sport seriously and I think a chance to compete in international tournaments is a great factor.

Just look at how many people showed up for Montreal vs Santos Laguna.

 

Re: 2009-2010 Concacaf Champions League

I'd like to see the reigning champ of the CSL added to the USL/MLS clubs to make a 4 team tournament. I'd doubt that such a team would win, but it would make it more interesting (and add a "David versus Goliath" element) and would allow each team to play on each matchday (2 games per day) while keeping it as 6 total matchdays.